Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148A(b) - Petitioner claimed that despite certain transactions being booked under the PAN of erstwhile company (amalgamated company) due to an error, they had correctly considered all transactions in their return. - The court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of proper application of mind in granting approval under Section 151. They observed discrepancies in the approval process, indicating a failure to review the request and draft order adequately. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequent notice issued under Section 148.
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148A(b) - Petitioner claimed that despite certain transactions being booked under the PAN of erstwhile company (amalgamated company) due to an error, they had correctly considered all transactions in their return. - The court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of proper application of mind in granting approval under Section 151. They observed discrepancies in the approval process, indicating a failure to review the request and draft order adequately. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequent notice issued under Section 148.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
